Aasharam Jatav vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

This revision application has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, District Datia in Sessions Trial No. 44/2016, whereby the trial Court has framed charges against the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420/109 read with Section 120-B of IPC.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Seondha, Datia made a complaint that some persons obtained loan of Rs. 10,91,000/- from the State Bank of India branch Seondha in the year of 2006 under the scheme of Kisan Credit Card by impersonating them as Anil Kumar Rao, Govind Singh, Basant Singh, Gyadeen Nai, Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Devlal Khangar and Rameshwar Kushwah. At that relevant time when the loan was obtained by these persons applicant was posted as MRO (Marketing and Recovery Officer) whereas co-accused Arvind Kumar Gupta and Anil Chand Gyali were posted as Branch Manager and Field Officer respectively in the bank. The loan was sanctioned and disbursed on the inspection report of above officers. On the basis of this written complaint, police station Seondha registered an FIR at crime No. 56/2015 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC and after due investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.

The trial Court has framed the charges against the applicant under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471 and 420 in alternate 420/109 of IPC. This order of framing of charges is subject matter of this criminal revision.

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that his job profile in the bank is confined only to the extent to make the recovery of the loan, in case of any default and disburse the sanctioned loan amount to concerning persons on the basis of report received from the field officer and endorsed by the Advocate. The present applicant has no obligation to verify the varsity of each applicant or to personally visit the loan applicant to inquire whether he made the application or not. Therefore, the police committed error in accusing the applicant for commission of offences charged against him. It was further contended that perusal of the charge-sheet indicates that the complainant/Manager of the bank, while mentioning about opening of the forged account, has only insinuated the applicant of discharging duties on the post of Marketing and Recovery Officer when such forgeries took place. Thus, the material collected by the police and the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. do not reveal any participation of the applicant in the alleged incident.

The learned counsel for the respondent/State supported the impugned order and highlighted the fact that except of participation of the applicant, the loan would not have been disbursed which is pivotal in the design of the commission of the crime.

Having considered the rival parties and perused the documents on record, it is appropriate to deal with the allegations against the present applicant in the context of the offence charged to arrive at a conclusion as to whether above mentioned charges would sustained against him or not. With respect to the offences punishable under Section 467, 468 of IPC, it would be appropriate to observe that the perusal of the charge-sheet, nowhere makes out the commission of the offences under the above mentioned sections of IPC, as the allegation of fabricating the loan application forms for securing loan is made against the other co-accused and the applicant has been dragged for the sole reason that the said incident has been taken place during his tenure as a Marketing and Recovery Officer. But such fact is not enough for satisfying the ingredients of Section 467 and 468 of IPC, since the fact must have some whisper of allegations about commission of forgery by the applicant, which is absent. Similar analogy can be followed for the purpose of discharging the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC. Although, in the opinion of this Court the offence punishable under Section 420, 120-B of IPC cannot be burst aside merely on the saying of the applicant, more particularly because no document has been filed to indicate powers and responsibilities of the applicant and at the same time, it has highly improbable that the offence of this nature can be committed without a possibility of participation of sanctioning authority. In any case, the incident of misappropriation of money advanced in the loan which is a public money can not be viewed mildly. Therefore, following ratio of judgment pronounced by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009)16 SCC 605 which is reproduced herein below:-

"25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the Court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction."

On cumulative consideration of these facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petition is allowed in part by discharging the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC but the trial shall continue with respect to the offence under Sections 420 and Section 120B of IPC. However, it is made clear that the observation made in this order will not prejudice the outcome of the case pending before the trial Court.